Finance experts, academics and
business leaders have raised fears that independence would destroy the
economy, hit investment and force companies to migrate to England.

In
an unprecedented survey that will prove devastating for the SNP,
analysts believe a Yes vote in the referendum could lead to the loss of
thousands of jobs and plunge the country into turmoil.

One
finance insider suggested Scotland would be added to the list of
impoverished European countries left on their knees. Another said there
would be 'utter panic' among finance firms and several warned of a
'disaster' for Scotland.

Setback: The vision of independence set out by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon risks the Scottish economy and would see businesses flee to England, experts warn

Alex
Salmond's separatist vision was dismissed as 'economically incoherent';
there were warnings that 'skilled labour' would leave; and creating a
new border would cut gross domestic product (GDP) by as much as 3 per
cent.

The findings are particularly humiliating for Deputy First
Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who yesterday predicted the economy would be
the key battleground in the referendum campaign.

The
Financial Times asked a number of high-profile economists and eminent
university professors to examine the impact of a Nationalist victory in
September.

Share this article

In a daunting verdict, 27 respondents said it would hurt the
Scottish economy and the rest of the UK.

Only four people who took part in the survey said a Yes vote could have a positive impact.

Former
Chancellor Alistair Darling, who is leading the pro-Union Better
Together campaign, said the findings prove that the 'risks involved in
leaving the UK are massive'.

But a spokesman for the Yes Scotland campaign insisted separation would 'encourage growth and increase employment'.

Referendum: Voters in Scotland will have their saying on leaving the UK this autumn

FARMERS WANT TO STAY IN UK

Farmers
are overwhelmingly set to reject independence, according to a survey.

Scots Lib Dem MEP George Lyon received 2,000 replies to a study he
conducted, with 72 per cent of respondents supporting the Union.

Three-quarters of farmers expressed concern about the impact separation could have on EU agricultural subsidies.

Four-fifths
said uncertainty over currency would harm their businesses, while 72
per cent feared separation would make it difficult to sell produce in
the rest of the UK.

Mr
Lyon said: 'Everyone wants to see a thriving Scottish rural economy,
but if you look at the real positives we get from the UK market, from
our place in Europe and our trade links overseas, our farmers can
achieve more as part of the UK family.

'Scotland's
place in the EU is not only vital for farmers, but also for jobs and
growth.' But Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead has claimed
farmers would have been handed an extra £1billion in European subsidies
if Scotland were separate.

Philip Rush of Japanese finance giant Nomura launched a stinging attack on the SNP vision.'Higher
taxes on income would push many wealthy individuals and some companies
they work for south of the Border, harming Scotland's economy,' he said.
'A fate similar to the secular stagnation in productivity seen in parts
of Europe's socialist south may await.'

Ruth Porter of the Policy
Exchange think-tank was similarly dismissive, saying: 'The raft of
economically incoherent policies being proposed by Alex Salmond would be
disastrous for Scotland.' Gavyn Davies of Fulcrum Asset Management
described a Yes vote as an 'unmitigated disaster for Scotland' as did
Stephen King, chief economist at HSBC bank.

One
of the main results of an SNP victory in the referendum would be the
loss of companies - and jobs - to England, several experts said.

Keith
Wade, chief economist of asset management firm Schroders, commented:
'When combined with the considerable uncertainty over whether Scotland
can remain in the EU, Scottish business would start to head south.'

David
Owen, chief European financial economist with investment firm Jeffries,
said: 'Scotland is likely to see an ongoing loss of business as it
migrates south of the Border.'

Andrew
Hilton of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation warned: 'If
there were a Yes vote there would be utter panic - with the Scottish
fund managers heading for the Border in droves.'

Neville
Hill of Credit Suisse bank said: 'The flow of direct and portfolio
investment, as well as some bank deposits, south of the Border would
provide Scotland with a nasty negative monetary shock.'

Many of those
taking part in the survey said uncertainty would devastate the economy.

James
Knightley of banking giant ING said: 'I think the uncertainty will be
damaging for everyone ... it is going to make a lot of foreign companies
think twice about investing in the UK.'

Melanie
Baker of Morgan Stanley warned of 'increased uncertainty for businesses
and markets'.

Brian Hilliard of French banker Société Générale said:
'It would create major uncertainty about the viability of the country
as an economic unit. Growth would be hurt.'

Ray
Barrell of Brunel University in London warned that independence 'is the
introduction of a new border. That is likely to reduce Scottish GDP by 3
per cent, and English GDP by 1 per cent'.

Alistair Darling, leading the Better Together campaign against independence, said the findings prove that the 'risks involved in leaving the UK are massive'

An
independent Scotland's reliance on oil was also highlighted, with
Philip Shaw of financier Investec predicting 'overall it will be on a
slow growth path'.

But despite the strong warnings Miss Sturgeon said yesterday: ‘I
firmly believe who wins the economic argument will win the referendum.

‘Scotland can more than afford to be independent,
something that even the No campaign agrees with. We need the powers over the
economy to get faster and more sustainable growth into the economy for the long
term.’

A spokesman for Yes Scotland added: ‘The greatest
uncertainty for business as well as the country as a whole stems from a ‘No’
vote. With ‘Yes’, we can tailor policies to suit our own needs and priorities,
thereby encouraging growth and increasing employment.’